Kori unit 1 and Wolsong unit 1 were permanently shut down in 2017 and 2019, respectively. Both plants were decided to demolish the building without reuse. Large structures must be demolished after removing systems and components in the building, and in the case of large structures, thorough planning is required because of the large scale of work. Therefore, in this study, important considerations in the phase of the demolition plan of large structures when decommissioning were analyzed. The demolition of large structures at nuclear facilities is major one phase of work within a broader decommissioning plan. Furthermore, the actual demolition of the structure (i.e., physical process) represents the last step in a process that begins with extensive planning and analysis. The National Demolition Association (NDA) has provided checklist items that should be considered before the start of a commercial demolition project and/or in the bid process. Important Considerations in the Phase of the demolition plan of large structures when decommissioning of nuclear facilities are Site knowledge and programs, Engineering survey/demolition plan, Hazardous and radioactive materials, Open air demolition, Financial and project management, Permits, Code adherence, and Special programs, Disposal pathway, Final site condition. The results of this study can be used as a basis for the Planning large structures demolition of the Kori unit 1 and Wolsong unit 1.

The effects of an individual effective dose from radioactive contamination that will remain during site reuse after the decommissioning of nuclear facilities is generally assessed using the RESRAD code. The calculated results should meet the site reuse criteria presented by regulators, 0.25 mSv/yr in the United States and 0.1 mSv/yr in Korea. After completion of decommissioning, the dose is not subject to measurement, resulting in Derived Concentration Guideline Level (DCGL) remaining at the site that is practically consistent with the dose criteria. In order to assess dose using the RESRAD code, various requirements will need to be considered and determined, where the selection of input parameters is one of the important factors in the dose assessment. In addition, appropriate selection of site-specific parameters is important to reflect the site characteristics of each decommissioned Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). Therefore, this study intends to analyze the impact of site-specific parameters by referring to the cases of overseas decommissioned NPPs. In order to evaluate doses using RESRAD code, a site reuse scenario must first be selected. In general, in the case of unrestricted reuse, the resident farmer scenario can be applied, so the resident farmer scenario was also selected in this study. In addition, once a resident farmer scenario is selected, input parameters are selected according to the scenario, and the input parameter inputs a single value or distribution according to the deterministic or probabilistic evaluation method. Therefore, since this study is to evaluate the effect on site-specific parameters, a single value was applied as a deterministic evaluation method. For the 10 site-specific parameters considered in overseas cases, the difference was set twice using the F9 function key in the RESRAD code and the results were analyzed. In this study, we used prior research data targeting domestic nuclear facility for sensitivity analysis. Related parameters include the category of contamination layer, soil, water transport, ingestion, and occupancy. The parameters that appeared as the greatest influence among the 10 parameters were different in radionuclide on the contaminated zone. We showed the changes according to the difference in input parameters was presented using the graph provided by the RESRAD code. As a result, in the evaluation for Co-60 in this study, no significant change was observed. However, in case of H-3, several parameters values were changed, indicating that the effect on dose will be different depending on the site characteristics of the nuclear facilities.

After permanent shutdown, contamination existing in nuclear facilities must be removed according to decontamination and dismantling procedures to achieve the target end state. In Korea, Korea Research Reactor (KRR) Units 1, 2 are being decommissioned, and Kori Unit 1 is in the process of reviewing the final decommissioning plan for the start of decommissioning. In order to complete decommissioning of nuclear facilities, it is necessary to satisfy the dose criteria according to the residual radioactivity remaining in the site and buildings. In the United States, which has a lot of experience in decommissioning, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) is used as a procedure for measuring and analyzing residual radioactivity. In MARSSIM, survey units are classified according to the level of contamination, and the radiation survey procedure and effort can be determined according to the survey unit level. After the radiological analysis and statistical verification of the survey unit, it is decided whether to release the site. At this time, the geographical area to be used as the background level is called the reference area. Therefore, selection of an appropriate reference area is important for accurate residual radioactivity analysis and for the release of the site. In this study, reference area evaluation cases and domestic decommissioning procedures were analyzed to derive considerations for selecting an appropriate reference area. For example, Zion NPP in the US selected a place outside the boundary of the restricted area unaffected by nuclear power plant operation as a reference area by referring to the meteorological monitoring report. Among Korea’s decommissioning procedures, the appropriateness of the reference area can be confirmed through the final status report submitted upon completion of decommissioning. However, since the selection and application of the reference area needs to be reflected during decommissioning, relevant information must be updated through periodic communication between operator and regulatory agency. The results of this study will be used as considerations for selecting a reference area.

In order to start decommissioning domestic nuclear facilities, the Final Decommissioning Plan (FDP) must be prepared and approved by the regulatory agency. The contents of domestic FDP consist of 12 chapters, and there is the decommissioning feasibility design that should be described in Chapter 5 as contents to be considered from the construction stage of nuclear facilities. The design of decommissioning feasibility for nuclear facilities seems to be largely divided into three items. In summary, there ae minimization of contaminations to facilities and the environment, easy of dismantling, and minimization of the radioactive waste generation. In addition, the design characteristics to which the ALARA principle is applied in terms of optimizing the exposure dose of workers and residents may also correspond to the decommissioning feasibility design. The design characteristics for decommissioning feasibility during the period leading up to the design, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities can be listed as the main points as follows. Minimization of facility contamination will include contents related to the leakage of systems and components, minimization of effluents to the environment will involve gaseous and liquid effluents from systems and components to the environment, easy of dismantling will involves history and inspection records during operation, and minimization of radioactive waste generation can be the contents related to the radioactive waste management plans. The design characteristics of facilities and equipment to meet the ALARA principles can be listed as follows. It means taking into account the benefits and costs of the design improvement plan, and the elimination of unnecessary radiation exposure can be maintained at the exposure dose ALARA, which is in line with the decommissioning feasibility design. Among the requirements of licensing documents for decommissioning domestic nuclear facilities is the decommissioning feasibility design. This item relates to the design characteristics for decommissioning considered in the construction stage of the facility and should present the effectiveness of measures for them until operation and decommissioning. In this study, the regulatory requirements presented in the construction and operation stage and the contents presented in the U.S. case were reviewed, and it is hoped that it will be used as reference for the preparation of FDP.

The decommissioning of Korea’s nuclear power facilities is expected to take place starting with the Kori Unit 1 followed by the Wolsong Unit 1. In Korea, since there is no experience of decommissioning, considerations of site selection for the waste treatment facilities and reasonable selection methods will be needed. Only when factors to be considered for construction are properly selected and their effects are properly analyzed, it will be possible to operate a treatment facility suitable for future decommissioning projects. Therefore, this study aims to derive factors to be considered for the site selection of treatment facilities and present a reasonable selection methodology through evaluation of these factors. In order to select a site for waste treatment facilities, three virtual locations were applied in this study: warehouse 1 to warehouse 3. Such a virtual warehouse could be regarded as a site for construction warehouses, material warehouses, annexed building sites, and parking lots in nuclear facilities. If the selection of preliminary sites was made in the draft, then it is necessary to select the influencing factors for these sites. The site of the treatment facility shall be suitable for the transfer of the waste from the place where the dismantling waste is generated to the treatment facility. In addition, in order for construction to take place, interference with existing facilities and safety should not be affected, and it should not be complicated or narrow during construction. Considering the foundation and accessibility, the construction of the facility should be economical, and the final dismantling of the facility should also be easy. In order to determine one final preferred plan with three hypothetical locations and five influencing factors, there will be complex aspects and it will be difficult to maintain consistency as the evaluation between each factor progresses. Therefore, we introduce the Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) methodology to perform pairwise comparison between factors to derive an optimal plan. One optimal plan was selected by evaluating the three virtual places and five factors of consideration presented in this study. Given the complexity and consistency of multiple influencing factors present and prioritizing them, AHP tools help users make decisions easier by providing simple and useful features. Above all, it will be most important to secure sufficient grounds for pairwise comparison between influencing factors and conduct an evaluation based on this.

Working during decommissioning of nuclear facilities can subject workers to a number of industrial health and safety risks. Such facilities can contain hazardous processes and materials such as hot steam, harsh chemicals, electricity, pressurized fluids and mechanical hazards. Workers can be exposed to these and other hazards during normal duties (including slips, trips and falls, driving accidents and drowning). Industrial safety accidents, along with their direct impacts on the individuals involved, can negatively affect the image of nuclear facilities and their general acceptance by the public. Industrial safety is the condition of being protected from physical danger as a result of workplace conditions. Industrial safety program in a nuclear context are the policies and protections put in place to ensure nuclear facility workers are protected from hazards that could cause injury or illness. Preventive actions are those that detect, preclude or mitigate the degradation of a situation. They can be conducted regularly or periodically, one time in a planned manner, or in a predictive manner based on an observed condition. Corrective actions are those that restore a failed or degraded condition to its desired state based on observation of the failure or degradation. In industrial safety, the situations or conditions of interest are those observed via the performance monitoring, investigations, audits and management reviews. Preventive and corrective actions are those designed to place or return the system to its desired state. Preventive actions where possible are preferred as they eliminate the adverse condition prior to it occurring. When an accident or incident occurs, the primary focus is on obtaining appropriate treatment for injured people and securing the scene to prevent additional hazards or injuries. Once the injured personnel have been cared for and the scene has been secured, it is necessary to initiate a formal investigation to determine the extent of the damage, causal factors and corrective actions to be implemented. Certain tools may be needed to investigate such incidents and accidents. Initial identification of evidence immediately following the incident includes a list of people, equipment and materials involved and a recording of environmental factors such as weather, illumination, temperature, noise, ventilation and physical factors such as fatigue and age of the workers. The five Ws (what, who, when, where and why) are useful to remember in investigation of incidents and accidents.

Despite of careful planning of decommissioning projects, there are often surprises when facilities are opened for dismantling purposes, or when material is removed from hot cells, etc. Unexpected incidents and findings during the decommissioning of nuclear facilities have been referred to in the past as unknowns. However, many of the problems encountered during implementation of decommissioning are well known, it is simply that they were not expected to arise. In some other cases, the problem may not have been encountered in the decommissioning team’s experience, forcing the development of new techniques, tools and procedures to address the unexpected problem, with the attendant delays and cost overruns that this often involves. Unknowns in decommissioning cannot be eliminated, regardless of the efforts applied. This is especially the case in old facilities where documentation may have been lost or where modifications were carried out without updates to reports. As a result, when planning for decommissioning, it is prudent to assume that such problems will occur, and ensure that arrangements are in place to deal with them when they arise. This approach will not only improve the efficiency of the decommissioning project, but will also improve the safety of the operations. One of the most common root causes of unexpected events in decommissioning is the lack of detailed design information or missing records of modifications, maintenance issues and incidents during operation. It is therefore necessary to check the completeness of design information in existing plants and to ensure that configuration management techniques are applied at all stages of the lifetime of a plant. In the case of a new plant, archiving samples of materials can be a valuable source of information to support decommissioning planning. During the lifetime of plants, it is likely that modifications will be carried out involving the construction of new buildings. The opportunity should be taken in these circumstances to consider the layout, the physical size and other attributes of the plant to ensure that they do not make decommissioning of existing facilities more difficult and also to optimize the potential for reuse in support of the decommissioning of the whole site, later in the life of the facility. Characterization of all aspects of a plant is essential to reduce the number of unknowns and the likelihood of unexpected events. This characterization should be extensive, but there is a limit to the level of detail that should be sought as the cost versus benefit gain may reduce. Reducing unknowns by retrospectively obtaining physical data associated with a facility is a useful means of characterization, and there are many tools in existence that can be used to carry this out accurately and effectively. Regardless of the efforts that are employed in decommissioning planning, unexpected events should be anticipated and contingency plans prepared. Although the details of the event itself may not be anticipated, its impact may affect safety and environmental discharge, and may or may not involve radiological impacts. Regardless of more serious impacts, unexpected events are likely to result in modifications to the decommissioning plan, incur delays and cost money. Finally, regardless of the status of a facility, whether at the concept stage or at the decommissioning stage of its life cycle, it is never too early to begin thinking and planning for decommissioning.

In general, after the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, buildings on the site can be demolished or reused. The NSSC (Nuclear Safety and Security Commission) Notice No. 2021-11 suggests that when reusing the building on the decommissioning site, a safety assessment should be performed to confirm the effect of residual radioactivity. However, in Korea, there are currently no decommissioning experiences of nuclear power plants, and the experiences of building reuse safety assessment are also insufficient. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed the foreign cases of building reuse safety assessment after decommissioning of nuclear facilities. In this study, we investigated the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant, Rancho Seco nuclear power plant, and Hematite fuel cycle facility. For each case, the source term, exposure scenario, exposure pathway, input parameter, and building DCGLs were analyzed. In the case of source term, each facility selected 9~26 radionuclides according to the characteristics of facilities. In the case of exposure scenario, building occupancy scenario which individuals occupy in reusing buildings was selected for all cases. Additionally, Rancho Seco also selected building renovation scenario for maintenance of building. All facilities selected 5 exposure pathways, 1) external exposure directly from a source, 2) external exposure by air submersion, 3) external exposure by deposited on the floor and wall, 4) internal exposure by inhalation, and 5) internal exposure by inadvertent ingestion. For the assessment, we used RESRAD-BUILD code for deriving building DCGLs. Input parameters are classified into building parameter, receptor parameter, and source parameter. Building parameter includes compartment height and area, receptor parameter includes indoor occupancy fraction, ingestion rate, and inhalation rate, and source parameter includes source thickness and density. The input parameters were differently selected according to the characteristics of each nuclear facility. Finally, they derived building DCGLs based on the selected source term, exposure scenario, exposure pathway, and input parameters. As a result, it was found that the maximum DCGL was 1.40×108 dpm/100 cm2, 1.30×107 dpm/100 cm2, and 1.41×109 dpm/100 cm2 for Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant, Rancho Seco nuclear power plant, and Hematite fuel cycle facility, respectively. In this study, we investigated the case of building reuse safety assessment after decommissioning of the Yankee Rowe nuclear power Plant, Rancho Seco nuclear power plant, and Hematite fuel cycle facility. Source terms, exposure scenarios, exposure pathways, input parameters, and building DCGLs were analyzed, and they were found to be different depending on the characteristics of the building. This study is expected to be used in the future building reuse safety assessment after decommissioning of domestic nuclear power plants. This work was

A large spectrum of possible stakeholders and important factors for safety improvement during decommissioning of nuclear facilities should be identified. Decommissioning includes additional aspects which are of interest to a wider range of stakeholders. The way in which local communities, the public in general, and a wide range of other parties are engaged in dialogue about decommissioning of nuclear facilities is likely to become an increasingly important issue as the scale of the activity grows. Timely stakeholder involvement may enhance safety and can encourage public confidence. Stakeholder engagement may result in attention to issues that otherwise might escape scrutiny. Public confidence is improved if issues that are raised by the public are taken seriously and are carefully and openly evaluated. Experience in many countries has shown that transparency can be an extremely effective tool to enhance safety performance. It sets out the development and implementation of an effective two-way process between the organization and stakeholders. Meaningful engagement is characterized through a flow of communication, opinions and proposals in both directions and the use of collaborative approaches to influence and explain decisions. The process is one in which an organization learns and improves its ability to perform meaningful stakeholder engagement while developing relationships of mutual respect, in place of one-off consultations. The evolving nature of this process is particularly relevant to pipeline projects, which will have differing stakeholder engagement requirements at each phase of the project lifecycle. Activity undertaken at all stages of the process should be documented to ensure engagement success can be reviewed and improved and to ensure historical decisions or engagements are captured in case stakeholders change during the progression of time and previous consultation records are required.

Kori unit 1, Korea’s first light-water nuclear power plant, was permanently shut down in June 2017. The operator, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. (KHNP), submitted a final dismantling plan for Kori unit 1 to the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) in May 2021. Pursuant to this procedure, the NSSC is preparing regulations for the decommissioning stage of large nuclear facilities for the first time in the Republic of Korea. The Korea Institute of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Control (KINAC) is also considering applying regulations on safeguards. Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) developed the “International Safeguards Guidelines for Nuclear Facilities under Decommissioning” in 2021. The guidelines describe the detailed application of safeguards measures to be considered when decommissioning nuclear facilities, dismantling essential equipment, and providing relevant information to the IAEA, as well as the scope of IAEA inspections. In addition, Dr. R. Bari of the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) proposed the Facility Safeguardability Assessment (FSA), a methodology that reflects facility characteristics from the design stage to ensure that designers, national regulators, and the IAEA communicate smoothly regarding safeguards measures. The FSA process derives expected problems with safeguards measures considering new nuclear facilities by analyzing the gap of safeguards measures applied to existing similar nuclear facilities. This study uses the existing FSA methodology to predict problems related to safeguards measures when decommissioning nuclear facilities and to analyze deviations from safeguards measure requirements according to IAEA guidelines. To this end, the reference facility is set as an operating pressurized light water reactor; the issues with the safeguards measures are summarized using the FSA Process; and a draft safeguards concept for nuclear facilities under decommissioning is designed. Furthermore, validity is confirmed through a simple analysis of the diversion path, and implications and lessons are derived. Through this, it is possible to anticipate new safeguards measures to be applied when decommissioning nuclear facilities in the Republic of Korea and review problems and considerations in advance.